Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)

LOTTIE BRANHAM, Appellant, v. LOEWS ORPHEUM CINEMAS, INC., Respondent, et al., Defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT

The Appellate Division order should be affirmed with costs and the certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as we must on defendant's motion for summary judgment ( see Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc. v. Tocqueville Asset Mgt, L.P., 7 NY3d 96), defendant Loews demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence that Loews had actual or constructive notice of the transient obstruction — a boy sitting in the aisle — or that the lighting in the theater was inadequate ( see Piacquadio v. Recine Realty Corp., 84 NY2d 967; Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836; see also Gilson v. Metropolitan Opera, 5 NY3d 574).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BRANHAM v. LOEWS
(Apr 3, 2007)